I haven’t updated this blog much, and there’s good reason for that! I’ve been CRAZY busy this year with the launch of Twin Cities Apologetics, a group which equips followers of Jesus with Apologetics resources and builds up ambassadors for Christ in the Twin Cities of MN.

If you want to be added to the email list to receive updates for Twin Cities Apologetics, send me a message with your email address OR send a quick email to twincitiesapologetics@gmail.com. Note that there will be a lot you can get out of the group, even if you don’t live in the Twin Cities of Minnesota!

That is basically the question Imagine Dragons singer Dan Reyonlds proposed on a recent interview on the Ellen Show. In the interview, Dan talked about his upbringing as a Mormon and his tendency to rebel against the moral cues of his culture. When he attended BYU (the “Mormon college”), he started sleeping with his girlfriend. BYU somehow found out about Dan’s actions, and the school decided to kick him out. That’s when he asked the question – “Why is this thing that feels right also something that gets me kicked out of college and shames me in my community and made me feel all this guilt?”

Now a few warnings before continuing. I am NOT about to advocate for the moral validity of the Mormon faith. I am also not about to tear down Imagine Dragons – I would say they’re in my top 5 favorite bands. Finally, I am not going to analyze BYU’s response to Dan’s actions or the effect that response had in Dan’s life.

But I do want to point out that in his question, Dan implied that he believed what he was doing was okay because it felt right to do. His assessment of his moral actions was not based on an objective moral code laid out by Mormonism, or any other objective moral code for that matter. It was based on a subjective standard – how those actions felt to him.

This notion is common for people in our culture to hold – if something feels right, it must be morally right. But do feelings actually provide us a solid basis to assess the moral quality of our actions? To address complex questions like this one, I like to start with the most obvious points, and then continue from there. So I will do just that with this question.

One obvious point is that using feelings as a basis for moral assessment doesn’t work logically. If we’re going off a purely feelings-based standard, any action could be morally justified with that standard. For example, I would not be surprised if some people who are charged with child pornography felt that accessing that content was an okay thing to do. Yet they are still prosecuted, and many people who base morality off individual feelings would be outraged by their actions.

Another point is feelings are temporary and can change. What feels right one day may feel not-so-right the next. What if Dan suddenly started to feel like sleeping with his girlfriend was a wrong thing to do? It seems that under the feelings-based standard, the action would turn suddenly from morally right to evidently wrong.

Based on these two concepts alone, it’s clear that feelings are not a solid basis for us to assess the moral quality of our actions. Certainly less obvious points could be thrown in as well. There’s the question of how to determine who is right when two people’s feelings conflict. Then there’s the question of how to govern with moral principles when the standard for morality is the feelings of each individual in a society.

So what is a proper standard to assess moral actions? Again, I turn to the obvious points to address this question. First, a proper standard involves something that goes beyond what an individual feels, since feelings are a poor basis for making moral judgments. Second, the standard is one that will not change quickly, as moral assessment would be nearly impossible if the standard can change on a dime. Third, the standard must transcend cultural norms in order for us to be able to evaluate the moral actions of people from a different culture.

This criteria for a proper moral standard is in line with theism – the notion that a good and personal God exists. In theism, goodness is inherent in God’s nature, and thus the moral standard comes from reflection about God’s nature. This nature goes beyond individual feelings, never changes, and transcends cultures.

It is possible that a non-theistic standard could meet the same criteria. But whether a moral standard comes from a theistic or non-theistic viewpoint, one thing’s for sure:

If something we do feels right, it does not necessarily follow that we are doing the right thing.

I heard about Jordan Peterson left and right over the past couple months. First, a friend wrote a comment on Facebook asking me if I knew about him. Then a few Christian friends asked me in person. Soon after, a co-worker asked me in the middle of a conversation. It was clear that I needed to check out what Jordan had to say.

Then I came across opportunities to hear from him. I listen to the podcast Unbelievable? on a regular basis, and that podcast featured him twice in the last month. I also received a Facebook invitation to his talk in Minneapolis. “Alright”, I thought, “This must be the moment”. I stalled a bunch but finally picked up a ticket the night before the event.

When arriving at the theater, I was instantly surprised by how long the line was. It’s clear that Jordan’s popularity has skyrocketed. The show was sold out a few days before it happened – I was fortunate to even get one last-minute ticket for it.

Throughout the show, people applauded after many things that Jordan said. It was hard to tell what type of audience was present at the show. From my understanding, Jordan’s talks tend to attract young men more than anyone, perhaps because of Jordan’s call to put a positive light on masculine traits. My assumption was that half or so of the crowd were Atheists or “non-religious”, but I could be totally wrong.

The most memorable moment of the night (by far) happened when a guy objected to something Jordan said. Jordan was talking about the Nazi regime, explaining corruption was not only at the top of their system, but it was also present within individuals throughout the different levels of the regime. After Jordan made his point, a guy near the middle-front of the theater stood up and shouted “You’re using propaganda from the John Birch Society!”. He continued shouting but was soon drowned out by boos from the audience. In the midst of the boos, the guy walked out of the theater.

As you can imagine, it took a while for the tone to get back to normal. Jordan stated that this was the first time in a tour of dozens of cities that someone heckled him like this. He also narrated what just happened from his perspective – that he wasn’t talking about anything super-controversial, and that the objection the guy brought up had little to do with his point. He rounded out his narration by pointing out this heckling as an example of ideological thinking (taking a firm, emotional, and dividing stance on a topic without much evidence behind it). To me, the heckling moment wasn’t a surprise, as I’ve attended a bunch of interfaith events in this area and have seen examples of divisive disagreement before. I personally appreciated the way Jordan handled the whole situation – I thought recapping and narrating what had happened was the perfect way to approach the heckling aftermath.

Another noteworthy event came from the Q&A, where Jordan read audience questions off his laptop and answered them. One question was about his most recent appearance on the Unbelievable? podcast, where Jordan said he doesn’t like answering the question “Do you believe in God”. The questioner asked him to expand further on why he made this statement. Jordan explained pretty much the same thing he did on the podcast, where he would want to ask “What do you mean by believe?” – because he doesn’t know and you don’t either. And he would also ask “What do you mean by God?” because personal conceptions of God are always unclear as well.

I think it’s completely valid to ask these clarifying “What do you mean by?” questions. But it seems that Jordan is dismissive of further conversation from there. I would want to give people the opportunity to explain what they mean by “believe”, and talk about any differences I have with their understanding of the word. The same process goes with “God”. I wouldn’t say we should avoid conversation about belief in God because the terms are unclear. But it may take some effort to get to a mutual understanding about the terms people are using in that conversation.

I also found it confusing that at another point, Jordan said “I live as though God exists”. By using this statement, Jordan must have some sort of conception of what “God” means! The statement seems to contradict what Jordan said about God being difficult to define.

Overall, the talk was highly practical. Jordan talked about focusing on personal responsibility rather than rights. He explained that people know they deliberately do bad things and have the power to make things worse, and thus they also have the power to make things better. And Jordan especially emphasized individual value, placing it as the focal point of our society. I definitely got a few snippets to think about from the talk, although I think I would enjoy Jordan’s religious-based presentations more.

I can certainly understand why Jordan has gained so much popularity – he is intelligent, keeps your attention when he talks, and doesn’t put himself into a specific box. The event was certainly worth attending. Even the time after the event was good – I had a chance to talk to a few people I didn’t know and to extend some invitations to my group Twin Cities Apologetics.

I want to check out Jordan’s future debate with Sam Harris – Jordan did a great job promoting it by saying he’s going to focus on what he sees as the biggest weakness in Sam’s views. And I’m definitely interested in hearing more from Jordan. Clearly there will be plenty of opportunities – Jordan has arrived to the world of juggernaut speakers, and he’s here to stay.

Imagine you’re watching a Youtube video of your favorite Christian song. You decide to scroll down to the comments section. There you read three words you never expected to see:

JESUS

NEVER

EXISTED

This is exactly what happened to me almost 10 years ago. I saw those three words, and dove into a deep religious debate with atheists who piled on objections against the claims of Christianity. As a Christian who never heard these objections before, my faith was shaken up instantly.

I began an investigation into these objections, reading books from both Christians and Atheists. Many of these objections appeared convincing at first… until I started digging into them. In particular, five common objections to the life of Jesus turned out to be simply false:

1. The gospels were written 100 years after the life of Jesus

Most Biblical scholars date the gospels to 30-60 years after the life of Jesus (around 30 AD). The latest is the gospel of John, which at the latest is given a date of 110 AD (80 years after Jesus). Since the last written gospel was written at most 80 years after the life of Jesus, it is inaccurate to say the gospels (implying all four of them) were written 100 years later.

2. Stories of Jesus were copied from the stories of ancient gods

This objection usually comes from people who watched the movie “Zeigeist”, which lists traits of various ancient gods and matches them to the traits of Jesus. But many of the traits the movie lists for ancient gods are not supported by the source documents. It’s also questionable how the gospel writers would know enough about all these ancient gods to be able to copy their traits and ascribe them to Jesus. The rhetorical force of this objection is strong, but the truth behind the objection is weak.

3. Paul believed only in a spiritual Jesus, not the historical person of Jesus

The main problem with this objection is Paul’s description of Jesus rising from the dead in 1 Corinthians 15. In that passage, Paul says that Christ died, was buried, and was raised. At the time Paul was writing this passage, the Jewish concept of someone being raised from the dead involved the physical body – God’s people would have their bodies raised up and renewed. Thus when Paul says Jesus was raised, he’s talking about the raising of his physical body, not a raising of some sort of “spiritual” being.

4. The gospels we have today don’t accurately represent the originals

This objection became popular after the release of the book Misquoting Jesuswritten by Bart Ehrman. To make his objection, Ehrman points first to the many differences between ancient copies of the gospels. While there are many differences, a large majority of them are insignificant differences like spelling mistakes which can be easily spotted. Ehrman also points to two “problem” passages in the gospels. While scholars (and most Bibles) have identified these passages as questionable, the passages don’t impact any central Christian claims. The points Ehrman bring up do have truth to them, but they don’t give us reason to think the gospels we read today are nothing like the originals.

5. Jesus never existed

A wealth of evidence pushes back against the idea that Jesus never existed. There are Paul’s letters which give us some detail about key elements of Jesus’ life. There are ancient historians who wrote about Jesus outside of the Bible. There are early enemies of Christianity (such as Celsus) who wrote about Jesus but never denied his existence. And of course we have the key sources for Jesus’ life – the gospels. This evidence is convincing enough to cause an Atheist like Bart Ehrman to conclude – “Jesus did exist, whether we like it or not“.

More commentary will be given on these objections and similar objections in the future website for Twin Cities Apologetics.

Flights provide a great opportunity to talk about spiritual topics with people you never met. Conversation opens up naturally as people share their travel plans. Still, making the transition to a spiritual topic during the flight can seem intimidating.

I want to suggest 10 things Christians should do on every flight in order to naturally open up spiritual conversation. As I go through the list, I’ll share a story of my interactions with a woman scientist I sat next to on my last flight. I don’t share my story to brag, but I share it to show how these things can work in real-life situations.

1. Pray for opportunities to have spiritual conversations

Praying before the flight allows you to turn your trust over to God, no matter what happens over the course of the flight. Before my flight, I prayed for God to use me however he wanted to, even when I felt tired. At the very least, the prayer helped me to focus more on obedience rather than on my feelings.

2. Make room in your flight plans for a long conversation

People often plan out what they’re going to do on flights, whether it’s watching a movie or doing business work. For my flight, I was planning to read a book for a Seminary class, but I didn’t set a hard schedule. Once the conversation with the scientist began, I put full attention on the conversation.

3. Stay open to conversation for at least some of the flight

On a flight, it can be easy to “tune out” potential conversation by putting on headphones or staying busy some other way. In my flight, I was reading a book and didn’t seem highly approachable as a result. But I did put the book down a few times during the flight so that there was at least potential for a conversation to start up.

4. Pay attention to what the people around you are doing

If you interrupt someone when they’re deeply focused on something, it can come across as rude and annoying. At the beginning of my flight, I didn’t start a conversation with the scientist because she was focused on her phone, studying something intently. When the flight attendant came around and asked what people wanted to drink, the scientist put down her phone and seemed more open and relaxed. At that point, I felt comfortable to move to the next thing on the list.

5. Ask a basic question to the person next to you

It’s easy to ask a basic question on a flight – a question like “what are you traveling for?” opens up instant conversation. When entering my flight, I noticed the scientist was wearing a shirt with a logo that appeared to be work-related. I pointed out this observation to her and asked – “Did you travel for something related to your job?” Conversation opened up from there.

6. Bring up your faith at some point in the conversation

Bringing up your faith opens up opportunity for others to ask about it if they want to know more. In my case, it was easy to bring up my faith because I was traveling to attend a Christian conference. But it may be harder to bring up if you’re not traveling to a Christian event. In those cases, you can still mention some Christian-related activity you do and see where the conversation goes from there.

7. Guide the conversation in a spiritual direction if it seems appropriate to do so

It may be appropriate to guide the conversation in a spiritual direction if the person you’re talking to takes interest in you bringing up your faith. That was the case with the scientist, as she eventually asked me, “Do you want to be a pastor?” After explaining my answer and noticing her interest in my response, I asked her, “What do you think about all that spiritual stuff?”

8. Accept the results of a conversation

The results of these conversations are ultimately in God’s control – you don’t need to feel pressure to keep a conversation going the entire flight. The scientist and I talked for about an hour, focusing on the fact that she and her husband have been on very different spiritual paths. When our conversation ended, we went back to our individual tasks for the final half hour of the flight. I didn’t feel pressure to continue the conversation – I was simply thankful for the conversation we did have.

9. Bring something to give out if the situation calls for it

This “something” could a contact card, a book, a tract – anything that gives someone an opportunity to think or to reconnect after the flight. I gave a contact card for my group Twin Cities Apologetics to the scientist since she took interest in digging into deep spiritual topics. The card gives her opportunity to follow up and talk more if she chooses to do so.

10. Extend a thank you to the people you talk to

Thanking the people you talk to shows your appreciation for their time and your care for them. It also leaves them with a good impression of your interaction. I thanked the scientist just as we were about to leave the plane, and I could tell she was appreciative of the conversation we had.

I don’t know what sort of impact this conversation had, if any. Maybe I will find out months or years down the line. But whether I have that knowledge or not, I leave the result of the conversation to God.

Sometimes I like to write about struggles that I’m dealing with right now. One of these struggles doesn’t seem like a big deal at first, but it can actually be consuming. Based on conversations I’ve had recently, the struggle affects many others too.

What is this struggle? Simply put, it’s comparing on Instagram.

As someone who is starting to use Instagram frequently to promote a group, this comparison is natural to do. I want to see what similar groups are doing so I can learn from them. In the process, I may notice how many people are responding to their posts, and do an instant comparison with my group.

But from a Christian perspective, this comparison crushes my ability to see God work through my group on Instagram.

Now, looking at those numbers alone, I can think that Jenna has it “made” compared to me. My group’s account looks insignificant in comparison.

But in this pure number comparison, I’m leaving out consideration of at least three differences between our accounts:

1. Time of existence

Jenna’s account has been around for 3 years, while mine has been around for 3 months. Obviously, the longer an account has been around, the more opportunities there are for people to see and respond to it. Yet I tend to compare my account with accounts that have been around for years, which is ridiculous since it’s not a valid comparison.

2. Target audience

Jenna’s account targets a few different groups of people, including people who run their own business and people who do other creative ventures like blogging. My account targets a subset of a particular group of people – Christians who want to discuss deep topics. Jenna’s account will generally attract a wider range of people than my account will.

3. Expertise

Jenna is very good at creating professional-looking posts and understanding what best appeals to others on Instagram. That expertise comes through in her account. I am “learning the ropes” of using Instagram – expertise will definitely take time to build up.

When considering all of these factors, I really have no basis to compare the sheer number of followers between Jenna’s account and my account. But it’s very easy to compare those numbers and downgrade what I’m doing as a result.

Now let’s step aside from that comparison. When I look solely at my group, I’m amazed by what God has done in it so far. I wouldn’t have expected a dozen people to be interested in it, much less over a hundred.

But my amazement fades as the desire for more comes in.

More followers.

More interaction.

More recognition.

And anything less than what I see happening on other accounts results in disappointment.

This Instagram comparison I think parallels to other parts of our lives. We can often compare our status in life to the status of others, whether it’s about marriage, profession, or popularity. This comparing escalates when social media enters into the picture.

When the comparing happens, everything we do can seem like a disappointment. Our lives seem less fulfilled than the lives of those around us. And our ability to praise God for what he’s given us diminishes.

When I look at my group’s Instagram account, I should focus on the account itself – praising God for what he’s done through it so far. Then I can take action with a post, and trust God with whatever results from it. Whether one person or hundreds of people are helped by the account in some way, it’s worth it!

And then when I look at life, it’s the same thing. I should focus on my life – praising God for what he’s done in it. Then I can take action, trusting God with whatever he’s calling me to.

Without comparison.

Without downgrading.

Without disappointment.

This is a hard mindset for all of us to strive for. But it’s one that will allow us to see God work in our lives. And it will increase our sense of amazement towards what he’s given us.

Over the weekend I had a serious conversation about the Resurrection of Jesus in the last place I’d expect – a satire website!

That’s right – in a Babylon Bee post from Saturday, I wrote a comment that received quite a bit of attention.

The post? “Millions Worldwide Cling To Faith That Jesus’s Resurrection Was Elaborate Hoax”

The comment? “People in the first century were just dumb, superstitious peasants, which is why they were smart enough to make a story up that would deceive millions for centuries to come.”

The point of making this comment was to make fun of an assumption commonly made by Atheists (it is a satire site, after all!). But in response to that comment, someone asked a serious question – “Isn’t that how you feel about other religions though?” I understood that this question touched on my potential bias towards Christianity, but I didn’t know what part of my comment the question was referring to.

In normal, face-to-face conversations, I would ask for some clarification about the question. But in an online environment, I had no idea if I would hear from this responder again. Thus I thought that instead of asking a follow up question, it would be best to clarify what exactly my post was about.

I responded as follows:

“My comment was a satire specifically about the view that people today are more advanced and intelligent than people in ancient history. People who hold this view typically downplay the ability for people in ancient history to know what is true and to express that truth to others (such as through writing).

People who hold both this view and the view that the resurrection was made up seem to have conflicting views. They downplay the intelligence of whoever made the resurrection story up, yet affirm that they had the intelligence to deceive others in a Jewish context where it would be difficult to do so. That’s why my comment applies specifically to Christianity.

As far as the view that people in ancient history are not as intelligent goes, people could also use that view to object to other religions and their origins.”

I also invited the responder to my Apologetics group Twin Cities Apologetics. If there was a chance that doing so could lead to a long-term conversation with the responder, then extending the invite was worth it to me.

A few other people responded to my comment, and one person in particular brought up the claim that 500 people saw Jesus after his resurrection at one time. After a few of these responses, the original responder came back with more questions:

“oh I see haha. Well, I have no doubt that people today are just as gullible about fake news as they were back then. As to the “500 eyewitnesses,” that’s hearsay from Paul. Unless we have some names, signed statements, etc… he could have just pulled that number out of a hat. After all, who in the early church would challenge Paul on that? And even if someone did, why should we think it would be recorded in the Bible?”

I knew that these comments and questions would require a pretty detailed response. In my response, I decided to hone in on one phrase – “hearsay from Paul”. I could have asked what was meant by “hearsay”, but again, this comment may be my last chance to get the responder or other people thinking!

Here’s what I wrote in response:

“I understand your point about gullibility. One difference I would note in that parallel is that today, a “fake news” story is one that shows up one day and is easily forgotten the next without much lasting effect. The resurrection, however, was a story that had far-reaching and lasting impact on people who believed it. There would be more reason for them to make sure that this thing that has now become their focus in life is grounded in truth.

I didn’t bring up the “500 eyewitnesses”, but I’ll talk about it anyway since you brought it up at the same time. To do so, I’ll explain why I question the idea that the 500 people claim is “hearsay from Paul”.

The 500 witnesses claim comes from the passage 1 Corinthians 15:1-7. There are good reasons to think that Paul received the information in this passage from eyewitness of the events at a time earlier than when he wrote it (which was 20-25 years after Jesus’ death).

One reason to think this is eyewitness material is that it appears to be in the format of a creed, or a basic set of beliefs held by the early church, which I won’t expand further on right now. Another reason is that Paul says he received the information in verse 3, which means the passing of that information must have come at an earlier time. One other reason is that in Galatians 1:18-20, Paul said that he visited a couple early church leaders (Peter and James) about 3-5 years after the death of Jesus, and it’s safe to assume that they would have discussed the events of Jesus (such as given in the 1 Corinthians passage) at this time.

So let’s go back to your phrase. With the word “hearsay”, the word could mean different things, but I’ll assume that you mean a “rumor”, or as one definition says, “information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate”. Considering the information about the 500 can be traced back to eyewitnesses, at the very least I think we can say that there is some substance behind the claim, in which case it is not “hearsay”. With the part about it being “from Paul”, the evidence indicates that the information did not come from Paul, but from an earlier source.

And even if the 500 witnesses can’t be substantiated, in 1 Corinthians 15 we still have other claims of Jesus appearing to key people, including James the previously skeptical brother of Jesus, as well as Peter.

And one quick consideration about your point about the Bible not documenting challenges to the claim about the 500 people – The New Testament is not void of discussion about opposition to the claims of Christianity. In Galatians 1:6, for example, Paul talks about people who are preaching a false gospel.

That’s a lot of explanation for what started as a satire snippet, but I think it’s worth diving deep into these important topics! Thank you for your good and challenging questions thus far.”

Since I have not yet received a response back, I’m guessing the conversation is over.

I have a few motivations for sharing this conversation with you. One is a bit selfish – I took the time to write out these responses, so why not use them again? But another is to make a few observations about how to navigate online spiritual discussions.

From this online discussion, I pull the following observations:

In a public online post, you are not only writing to the person you’re in discussion with, but also to other people who may read the discussion!

If there is opportunity to build a relationship with the person you’re talking to, go for it! Building that relationship is more important than scoring quick points in an online debate.

For Christians, it’s important to be courteous and respectful in these kinds of discussions so that we can reflect the character of Christ to others, especially in light of observation #1.

Asking clarifying questions may not be the best route to take if there are only a few opportunities to respond. It may be better to make assumptions, explain those assumptions, and write a response with the assumptions in order to give others something to think about. The person you’re talking to can still add clarification if your assumptions are incorrect.

Is it suddenly my calling to have serious discussions on satire websites? Probably not. But at the very least, this discussion gave me practical experience and some observations that will certainly help with future online discussions.